World Contest system

GJ wrote:thats is were it falls down as how can you say a qualifer should be worth less points

but thats the same with bookies odds

Matthew Stevens is higher than Peter Ebdon with Bookies

Thats is why i prefer bookies odds because in most cases ronnie aside they are not far out and it worked well for 2009 and 2010 predicts

so why change a winning formula

GJ wrote:Thats is why i prefer bookies odds because in most cases ronnie aside they are not far out and it worked well for 2009 and 2010 predicts

so why change a winning formula

ask sonny its his baby

I just think if aint broke dont fix it

Bookies odds aren't always right but they're right a hell of a lot more often than the rankings, how many times has the world number one won a tournament ? Not that often when you think about it.

Fair point and look at allen last 2 years he has made worlds semi's or quarters so to say he should be worth more points than a qualifier in this case stsvens is strange

Bourne wrote:Bookies odds aren't always right but they're right a hell of a lot more often than the rankings, how many times has the world number one won a tournament ? Not that often when you think about it.

god someone make a decition we got this bullocks on another snooker forum years ago where it was more complicated than United nations.

as i say im easy either way 59% think the best way is option 1 and 2 which is the same system used different methods.

lets do a poll with only option 1 and 2 up so that people who voted 3,4 and 5 can re vote.

in the 2 years under bookies odds i ahve never heard 1 complaint says alot and if it aint broke dont fix it

GJ wrote:in the 2 years under bookies odds i ahve never heard 1 complaint says alot and if it aint broke dont fix it

the guy who devised it has on this very thread said its broken

Wild wrote:

Bourne wrote:Bookies odds aren't always right but they're right a hell of a lot more often than the rankings, how many times has the world number one won a tournament ? Not that often when you think about it.

god someone make a decition we got this balls on another snooker forum years ago where it was more complicated than United nations.

as i say im easy either way 59% think the best way is option 1 and 2 which is the same system used different methods.

lets do a poll with only option 1 and 2 up so that people who voted 3,4 and 5 can re vote.

option 1 won the vote

says it all



WILD

as your running it with pad which would you find easier to use ?

GJ wrote:option 1 won the vote

says it all



WILD

as your running it with pad which would you find easier to use ?

dont mind TBH as long as me and pad looking at the same betting site

Betfred was the one last year and it's the World sponsor

i think how it will work is ill make the templates make sure everything runs ok so everyone knows when deadline is etc and pad will do the tables and work out scores

i think wild is right to make it clear put a new poll

and vote option 1 or 2


and then it will be sorrted soon

Bourne wrote:Betfred was the one last year and it's the World sponsor

well that would make sense

http://www.betfred.com/Areas/betting/Te ... group-list

So a vote between the option that originally won and the option that came third

Bourne wrote:So a vote between the option that originally won and the option that came third

ok so if wild and pad are happy option 1 it is

as it won the vote

thing is its the same option and 13 out of 22 wanted that idea.

sonny

are you happy with option 1 using betfred odds ?

option 1 rules

GJ wrote:ok so if wild and pad are happy option 1 it is

as it won the vote

British democracy is different, as we all find out

But Option 1's alright, I'll get the template ready, we go live tomorrow.

E Mail me the Details so i know just in case theres another interruption during the night

PLtheRef wrote:

GJ wrote:ok so if wild and pad are happy option 1 it is

as it won the vote

British democracy is different, as we all find out

But Option 1's alright, I'll get the template ready, we go live tomorrow.